Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths

She claims that as a star dies, it releases a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation... it also sheds mass, so much so that it no longer has the
density to become a black hole.

Before the black hole can form, she said, the dying star swells and explodes.

The singularity, as predicted, never forms, and neither does the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

This applies to ALL stars then yeah? No matter how big they are?

So a massive dying star that collapses and then explodes, leaving over 100 solar-masses, still wouldn't be dense enough to "create" a black-hole /
gravity-sphere? This is the part that makes non-sense.

I think the lady must have a profound understanding of Hawkings Radiation, or we wouldn't have seen her paper surface because it would have been
laughed off long ago; 'What the (bleep) does she know'. The problem lies with the article being so limited... I have re-worded it slightly,

She claims that as some stars die, they release a type of radiation known as Hawking radiation... they also shed some mass, and in some cases so much
so that they no longer have the density to become black holes.

Before a black hole can form, she said, the dying stars swell and explode.

The singularity, as predicted, wouldn't form, and neither would the event horizon - the boundary of the black hole where not even light can escape.

What do you guys think? Has the article been limited so much so that the real message has been obscured by people thinking it applies to every
dying star?

Why can you do this? Because the gravitational field of a black hole is the same gravitational field of the collapsing star.

Yes, I
know that. What changes is the gravity gradient. But you said this earlier:

The gravity field changes and gets stronger as the star collapses.

What produces these quantum effects near the event horizon? It's the stronger gravitational field that occurs as a star collapses.

No.
Hawking radiation occurs once the horizon forms and continues for long afterward.

Virtual particles are forming all the time, everywhere. You know, that "vacuum energy" thing? The difference is that with the existence of a nearby
event horizon the particles are separated so they cannot combine as they normally would. Hawking radiation occurs because one of the pair of
particles is able to escape and one does not. Instead of annihilating themselves and both disappearing back into the vacuum.

The vacuum of space (or, more correctly any "space") has an energy level. Nothingness is in fact something[2]. Due to the uncertainty principle,
virtual particles will always appear from the energy of a vacuum and always appear in pairs. These particles "borrow" energy from the vacuum and
immediately collide and annihilate themselves, repaying the energy back into the vacuum so as not to violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Didn’t Hawking recently claim that black holes as we’ve come to understand them may not exist?

No, he did not say that black holes
do not exist. That's what the headlines about it said. Your source:

In reality, the headlines should not be "black holes don't exist" but "black holes are more complicated than we thought, but we are not going
to really know how complicated until gravity and quantum mechanics try to get along".

Didn’t Hawking recently claim that black holes as we’ve come to understand them may not exist?

No, he did not say that black holes
do not exist. That's what the headlines about it said. Your source:

In reality, the headlines should not be "black holes don't exist" but "black holes are more complicated than we thought, but we are not going
to really know how complicated until gravity and quantum mechanics try to get along".

The best we can see from a black hole is 6 pixels on a computer screen at the center of the milkyway and thats after using software to remove all the
dust from the image.

To go on and then say that the universe is full of these things is a bit stupid and other reasons can make plants appear to wobble as they circle this
so called black holes thats just 6 pixels in size like heat or gravity.

Its OK saying energy can create mass but what created the energy or do you think that the big bang was just the CPU being turned on given that our
brains work like computers, use electric and our DNA is computer code.

Our laws of physics are just like the game play rules inside a game and can be written to produce any results that you like by a programmer and all
these images you get to see from outer space are computer enhanced to get you interested when in fact most of space is quite dull indeed with little
colour most of the time.

Maths is the only true science and sums need to add up on any computer sytem and Physics is all about maths so any dimention you are in only has maths
as a common langwage between the dimentions but after thats its all down to what the programmer wants to do with the maths and that includes how
protons can seem to travel as a wave or particles.

The world is not real, its made up inside your brain and thats a mini computer on some type of internet

originally posted by: Klassified
I have no idea whether the lady is correct, but if she is, and the past is any indicator, we won't know for anywhere from 25-100 years. That's
usually about how long it takes for academia to accept anything that goes against the present standard.

Note that Hawking radiation would still be present, even in
the absence of an event horizon [15, 16]. More- over, the present authors have noticed that, kinemati- cally, a collapsing body could still emit a
Hawking-like Planckian flux even if no horizon (of any kind) is ever formed at any finite time [17];

If she agrees that collapsing stars create hawking radiation and the only way to create hawking radiation is from an event horizon isn't she
contradicting herself. What's her explanation for the hawking radiation?

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical
solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An
earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate
solutions to the problem.

It's just silly to be having this debate because this is 11th grade science class stuff. It just shows an arrogance of ignorance to act like these
scientist are so stupid, they would base an entire paper on something this stupid.

An event horizon doesn't produce Hawking Radiation. An event horizon doesn't need to be in place to produce Hawking Radiation. It's the
gravitational field of the collapsing star that loses energy when it rips apart virtual particles and this energy is Hawking Radiation.

The virtual particle can escape the event horizon but an event horizon doesn't need to be in place to produce Hawking Radiation.

Particles and anti-particles are constantly appearing and vanishing in the physical vacuum. This can be indirectly observed in numerous lab
experiments here on Earth. Near a black hole, the gravitational field changes in strength due to its tidal component, and when this tidal scale equals
the scale of a virtual particle pair, the pair can be tidally ripped apart. This causes one of the particles to escape to infinity and the other to
fall through the horizon and be lost. The gravitational field, meanwhile, has lost energy in doing the work to separate the particles and to confer
'positive energy' to the particles that escape to infinity as the Hawking Radiation. The net effect is that the black hole has lost mass equal
to the mass of the escaping particle.

Hawking radiation starts out as two virtual particles on the horizon of a black hole, one particle and one antiparticle. Usually, the virtual
particles are a pair of photons. A photon is its own antiparticle, so this doesn't contradict the fact that a particle-antiparticle pair are
produced. However, one particle falls into the black hole, the other comes out. Once the particles separate due to the black hole's gravitational
field, they are no longer virtual particles, but real particles.

Again, the virtual particle pair separates because of the gravitational field NOT THE EVENT HORIZON. What happens is the gravitational field loses
energy because it's doing work to separate the virtual particle pair. This loss of energy is Hawking Radiation.

You said:

Without the separation of particles which occurs because of the event horizon, there is no Hawking radiation.

With all due respect, this is just an asinine comment. The separation of virtual particles doesn't occur because of the event horizon. It occurs
because of the gravitational field.

The best way to think of why indeed the black hole is losing energy in the matter/antimatter scenario is that particles are actually created at
the expense of gravitational energy (which is then related to the properties of space-time). Consider the following example. Say there's a particle
moving toward a large mass --the particle feels the gravitational pull of the mass. The gravitational field exerts a potential energy on the
particle which in turn is converted to kinetic energy of the moving particle. To conserve total energy the potential energy of the mass gets more
negative. Indeed, the mass experiences a loss of potential energy as the particle experiences a gain in kinetic energy. So in the same way, at the
black hole event horizon, two virtual particles --say photons --separate due to the gravitational force of the black hole; one adds negative energy as
it falls into the black hole, the other (now a real particle) escapes.

This can also be why Hawking Radiation hasn't been observed. This is because what we call black holes don't produce Hawking Radiation and we need to
start looking at dying stars to detect Hawking Radiation. If this is the case, then we need another explanation for the behavior of what we call black
holes.

Black holes do exist. One only has to look at the orbits of the stars at the center of the Milky Way. The orbits say that there is an object,
unseen, that is on the order of a hundred million times the mass of the sun. Where is it if it is not invisible? How could that amount of mass not
collapse into a black hole if its diameter is smaller than the closest orbiting stars orbit? This person is like Einstein. They don't want to
believe something that observable data is telling them is true because it doesn't fit the way they think the universe should work. Reality is
reality. It is just like the terrorism situation. Bombing Middle Eastern nations to destroy terrorists creates more terrorists. Terrorists only
target the West because the West is in their countries. Western journalists are beheaded in Iraq because they are in Iraq. What don't people
understand? Leave the Middle East and stop supporting dictatorships and there will be no future 9-11. Instead they double down on stupidity. It
used to be that the civilian population of the Middle East were relatively moderate and opposed groups like ISIS. Now they actually do support ISIS
because they have learned that America only cares about controlling the Middle East through war and puppet governments, not about the lives of the
people living there. Every nation in this new coalition is a dictatorship. People refuse to believe in reality.

If I read a thread while not signed in, then sign in, why does it take me to another page so I have to search for the thread that I was reading?

I am curious. What is your position regarding the statement that "particles can be created by time independent gravitational fields that have a
horizon AND time dependent gravitational fields".?

Having only scanned the first section of the paper I can't tell you if the math is correct. What I can tell you is that a virtual pair of particles
can only be separated by a Horizon. This is because of the scales we are talking about are at the planc length, and nothing that we have observed both
in reality or theoretically other than a gravitational field which has reached beyond a positive curvature can cause the pair to avoid
annihilation.

It is also worth noting Newtonian laws here, given that when the negative mass of the anti particle is absorbed by a gravitational field the
gravitational field will indeed loose mass, which is in turn balanced by the positive mass the universe gains due to the positive particle.

Given all this, it is worth mentioning about the expansion of the universe itself. One could state that the conditions within the universe were in
fact the exact opposite of what we observe when considering a black hole, this is especially true of the inflation period. If the paper is correct
then we would be a universe of anti particles and the expansion of the universe itself would be slowing down to eventually evaporate as the virtual
pair were separated and tunnel beyond the expanding universe.

What I can tell you is that a virtual pair of particles can only be separated by a Horizon.

If you were Pinocchio, your nose would be a mile long right now.

Virtual particles are not separated by the event horizon. That's just utter nonsense. They're separated by a changing gravitational field as the star
is collapsing.

The only question is in the calculation of how much Hawking Radiation is created as the star collapses. She goes over this very well and she spells
these things out in her paper and the video. So when you say that the event horizon separates the virtual particle pair, that's just a flat out lie.
Here's more from her paper.

Particle creation is a generic feature of curved space-time quantum field theory [9]. The time-changing gravitational field of imploding stars
gives rise to quantum gravitational particle creation. For the case of stars collapsing to Black Holes, this process is known as Hawking radiation.
The whole flux of particles is created from the time the collapse starts, up to the point when the horizon forms, with the very last photon becoming
the horizon. From the moment of horizon formation onward, the surface gravity κ of the black hole is nearly a constant and no radiation can escape
from the Black Hole to future infinity, since by the definition of the horizon, photons are trapped by the horizon.

Particle creation can be thought of as arising from the ’tidal’ forces of the changing gravitational field near the surface of the collapsing
star that ’rip apart’ vacuum pairs of particles antiparticles [2, 3, 13, 15, 18]. The positive energy particles escape and travel to future
infinity becoming part of Hawking radiation, while the negative energy particles fall inward in the star [13], [15, 18]. If Σ0 and Σf denote the
3-surfaces at the onset of collapse time and the end of collapse respectively, then the time lapse between the two surfaces is the time interval
during which all of the Hawking radiation is produced, with the final photon γf being aligned to the horizon. Any other photon produced after γf has
to be trapped by the horizon and can not escape the black hole.

The crucial point to be emphasized here is: Hawking radiation is produced by the changing gravitational field of the collapsing star, i.e. prior to
the black hole formation, [18], [9]. Otherwise the surface gravity of the black hole κ, and the temperature of Hawking radiation would increase with
time, leading to a nonthermal distribution of radiation. The event horizon of the black hole traps consequent photons of radiation produced near
the event horizon. The photons produced after γf can not travel outwards, rather their geodesics focus inside the black hole. More explicitly, the
surface gravity of the Black Hole is defined in terms of the 4-acceleration of an external observer. If κ were increasing with time, so would the
acceleration of inertial relative to freely falling observers. For these reasons, quantum gravitational particle creation occurs during the collapse
phase of the star,(see a seminal paper by Davies [18] for the details).

What she's saying is just common knowledge. You guys keep making these claims that have no basis in fact. An even horizon is just a boundary that says
this is the point of no escape. It doesn't rip apart virtual particles. This occurs because of the changing gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Here's a video where she talks about this and explains it as she lays out the history of discoveries in this area.

LOL, this simply shows that your position is pure nonsense. You don't quote Hawking or Bekenstein. You don't show us a paper or any academic study
that says the event horizon separates virtual particles. You post a 2 minute clip of Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman that doesn't support
anything your saying.

The reason why Virtual Particles would separate is not because of the event horizon. It's because of the gravitation field being caused by the
collapsing star. As Mersini Haughton eloquently put it, a black hole and a collapsing star are the same thing. The black hole comes from the interior
of a collapsing star. Anyone with just basic knowledge of this would know that a collapsing star is a black hole. Black Holes are not magical items
that appear out of nowhere. They are collapsing stars.

The Event Horizon is an imaginary boundary that's the point of no return for objects falling into a black hole. The event horizon doesn't rip anything
apart. It's the gravitational field of the black hole that does this. The fact that you don't understand tells me that you don't know what you're
talking about.

It's like if a kid is in the sand box with another kid and he draws a line and says don't cross this line or we will fight. The line is there as a
boundary. It doesn't cause the kid to actually cross the line just like an event horizon doesn't cause virtual particles to rip apart. It's just a
line that says, if you cross this line we're fighting or in the case of a black hole, you can't escape the pull of the gravity.

Here's more:

Although the event horizon is an imaginary line that's impossible to observe, astronomers have imaged the region around a giant black hole
at the center of a distant galaxy, and measured, for the first time, the closest stable orbit in which matter can circle the black hole. The findings
were reported today in the journal Science.

Based on new calculations of particle on the edge of a black hole, Hawking said in the PBS documentary "Hawking", "Some particles could escape the
black hole, which seemed to make a mockery of the known laws of physics."

At the heart of this new theory, Orosz said, is an imaginary boundary called the event horizon.

"It's the boundary beyond which you cannot escape," Orosz said. "If you're outside the event horizon, in principle you can escape if you go fast
enough and once you cross the event horizon you're stuck."

16. Because an object approaching Event Horizon will not even observe anything strange, it will not even know that it is actually approaching
an Event Horizon because this boundary is nothing physical. It is only an imaginary boundary based on mathematical calculations.

The problem hear is, you don't even understand what an event horizon is. So it's shameful that you're trying to belittle the intelligence of Mersini
Haughton whose a respected Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist and you don't even know the basics of a black hole.

Most stars in our universe don't turn into black holes...though some have they're plasma or photons sucked into them; buy a star that has turned
into a black hole. Since some black holes eject lighted photons or mass at there magnetic poles, proves that their is not an event horizon surrounding
a black hole --- but what Hawking describes as an "apparent horizon" --- whereas a percentage of photons do not get sucked into a black hole, but
are slipped into a apparent horizon and ejected at the magnetic poles of the black hole at near the speed of light.

That Phage...suggests that my hypothesis on interstellar capable starship propulsion --- might indeed be possible --- if it is equipped onboard with a
micro-mini black hole propulsion unit.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.